Over 70 other tribal elders receive death threats, U.S. Congressman calls on death penalty for leaker Manning

It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials. First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks. Then they endured Wikileaksrelease of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S. It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S. One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.

The note reads:

We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.

NewsWeek first reported on the murder. They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.Wikileaks founder and convicted Australian computer criminal Julian Assange claimed in a TIMEinterview that the leak was justified in the name of transparency. He assured that no one would be harmed by the leak, stating:

We feel confident. The material is seven months old; we reviewed it extensively. We held back 15,000 documents that we felt needed further review because the type of classifications they had. We've been publishing for four years a range of material that has caused the changing of constitutions and the removal of governments, but there's never been a case that we are aware of that has resulted in the personal injury of anyone.

In related news, U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has called on the U.S. Military to pursue the death penalty in the Manning case. He says Manning's actions constitute treason in a time of war and thus should be punishable by death. His statements came in an interview, which is preserved here in an audio recording.

We spoke with key government witness Adrian Lamo, who turned Manning in, about Rogers' remarks. He tells us he doubts the U.S. government would pursue the death penalty given that they didn't in the case of Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent-turned-Russian spy. Lamo states, "The damage done by Bradley Manning doesn't begin to approximate the damage Robert Hanssen did."

Hanssen received a life sentence, which he is currently serving.

If the government were to pursue such a sentence, though, Lamo says he would refuse to testify.

He states,"I elected to turn Manning in, in the hopes of saving lives. I'm not going to participate in a process that's going to take a life. There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks."

He concludes, "Under any other circumstances I will testify in the case. [But] my concern for human life comes first."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You probably don't understand exactly how the law works. You don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty of a death. If your buddy shoots someone while holding-up a liquor store and you drove him there and drove him away, you are going to be convicted of that death. Any contributory act that leads to a deliberate murder can also be convicted of the crime. The assasination of these tribal leaders is an obvious risk to the release of their names.

Ignoring that you cannot be convicted of a "death", I wasn't talking about guilt, I was questioning the term "fully responsible."

quote: Any contributory act that leads to a deliberate murder can also be convicted of the crime.

In theory this statement might be true. However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction. Driving the car in a drive-by is one case where you probably would get convicted. Driving someone to the location where they committed a murder is less likely.

In this particular case, there is the added complication of a warzone, different jurisdictions (and associated laws of such) including whatever country Assange is in, Afghanistan, and the USA. Add to that, people don't usually get convicted of murder for snitching, even in the US.

Considering all this, the absolutism in your post is premature, to say the least.

quote: In theory this statement might be true. However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction. Driving the car in a drive-by is one case where you probably would get convicted. Driving someone to the location where they committed a murder is less likely.

Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association). It would be more difficult to convince the jury you are innocent, than guilty.

I think you are misinterpreting the use of the term "fully responsible". Perhaps "undoubtedly responsible" would fit you better?

May I remind everyone that they offered the White House to review the documents to prevent that some names would slip and... the White House declined the offer so... the US Government is also responsible for this.

What surprises me is the fact that people want to blame Wikileaks and their informers:

If the reported crimes were committed by the U.S. government, treason was committed by the government to its citizens and the rest of the world, not the other way around.

Obviously the government has a lot of dirty stuff to hide and interestingly enough one of the loudest voices of the extreme right wing is the voice of the person who "basically" said "Torture works and when it works, it's no longer torture. It's patriotism American-style": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

I'm sure I'm gonna get a lot of negative votes from some people, but I guess that some people prefer not to have true notion that their government is committing crimes (that's what the leak is all about: crimes committed by US and other countries in Afghanistan, etc). It's obviously not the first time someone leaked info to tell the truth to the world about crimes governments are committing. Nixon's "Deep Throat" anyone?

Personally I prefer that these crimes are exposed so that we can all know how and what our governments are doing, not just what they want us to know.

The patriotic thing to do is to peal out these rotten apples in the government that are committing crimes so that we can have the best government our country deserves.

Releasing document for transparency of the government is one thing, but releasing documents that happen to mention possible spies that are currently still out in the field is another.

Regardless of what you think, there is no such thing as strictly black and white in the world. There is always a gray area. There will always be things within the government, any government, that the world is best off not knowing.

Legally he was assisting terrorists in the act of terrorism. Aiding and Abetting will be the charge for sure. He may get away with it under Obama, but the next Republican will have a special forces team snatch him from his hole and will put him on trial.

Good for you, if that makes you happy! The guy excercises his (everone's) right of free speach and exposing the unhuman actions and waste of tax dollars by the government. What happent with the small government believe of the repoblicans?

Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution. Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

I also don't see how tax dollars are being wasted here. We left Afghanistan to fend for itself back in the 80s, and the Taliban took over, got to supporting Al Qaeda and then we got 9/11 and a complete collapse of the United States economy. There's a saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

One more - there are no inhuman actions going on - the leaked documents have showed nothing of the sort. The casualty figures are lower than any other war of similar ever fought.

And what's this stuff about Republicans and small government? This isn't a Republican war. It's an American War. Damn near everyone in Congress authorized it. Believe me - we're all ready to leave, but there's a fair precedent that's been set that says if we mess this up, it will probably bite us in the ass a lot harder than if we'd stayed.

Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution.

An interesting attitude, but I'm fairly sure your courts have disagreed with it on several occasions. Citizenship is not a requirement for constitutional protection in the US. Fortunately.

Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

The US is not at war. That requires an act of congress. The US is merely "conducting peacemaking operations overseas". This is the official position of the US government.

Manning has already been charged and will not be tried for treason. He is charged with two counts of violation of the uniform code of military justice. The first is article 92 (failure to obey orders) and the second is article 134 (general conduct bringing discredit upon the armed forces).

I can't speak for everyone but I'm outraged over the 3000 civilians that were murdered when the World Trade cCenter buildings were flown into and blown up.

Assange voluntarily joined the U.S. military service. It's shameful and saddening when "patriots" like Assange (and you) gleefully justify treason and endangering fellow military personnel with impunity.

They are doing these things with my tax money. You bet I am best off knowing what they are doing. If they are wasting my money and killing civiliance and kids I want to know so I can vote them out of office. Unfortunately in today's environment, voting them out of office does not change anything.

We live in a Republic, not a direct democracy. You don't have the right to personally know everything that's going on at any given time in the government. Transparency is one thing, but releasing classified documents in the middle of an ongoing war is treason.

The Romans recognized millenia ago that a direct democracy was simply not feasible. So, in closing - I hope you like knowing that we're doing a good job over here, even though that knowledge comes at the expense of the lives of our Afghan allies.

so you think that the white house should condone leaks such as this by being willing to "filter" them out?

negative.

the white house is not about to let the world think that we're "ok" with having protected information in the public sector. worse, even IF they agreed to filter the documents--the filtered parts would likely still find the light of day; thanks to conspiracy idiots.

rest assured that if the white house had filtered anything, the same apologists (of which you are yourself a staunch believer) would come out with a statement painting the white house as culpable and quite complicitous. IF such a transaction ever did happen between wiki-leaks and the white house--the response from the white house was the correct one.

the blood is on the hands of wikileaks and the source behind these documents. blood also resides on the hands of al qaeda; but the latter has not changed circumstances by this development.

collaborators should be tried and punished to the maximum extent allowable under law. in this case, that includes execution.

quote: the blood is on the hands of wikileaks and the source behind these documents. blood also resides on the hands of al qaeda; but the latter has not changed circumstances by this development.

I guess the lives of 70 elderly is a small price to pay to save the lives of kids and women innocent victims of the fight tactics of our government if the voters force the government change its ways (instead of diffending the government's actions)

Have any of the deaths listed in the documents done out of malice or were they accidents, mainly based on identity? Our troops are held to a very high standard and exercise great constraint in their actions, yet the tens of thousands of women and children IED's kill, well they are not important. People like Jon would rather that Saddam be in power, punishing the 70+% of his population, killing off the Kurds, and spending the rest of the money on his fellow Sunni's. Oh well.

And if you think that Manning's actions will result in only 70 "elderly" people dying, you have no idea. The Taliban will kill way more than that using the excuse that Islam is a Religion of Piece.

Those of us who have had our boots on the ground and have walked among the downtrodden truly know and understand what freedom means.

quote: Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association).

First, you did not say "knowingly" before. And that is something you would have to prove (that the driver knew what was going to happen), in any case. I was just saying, vs. a driveby (where the driver is actively involved in the crime), a "drive-to" is less likely to be considered murder. The key word would be "knowingly," however.

Look, its obvious you have a lay person's understanding of the law and you should not try and tell others how it works. The original poster was trying to describe the "felony murder rule" concept.

In a felony murder rule situation, you only need to be a small part of ANY felony. And if any murder happens during that felony (the robber accidentally discharges his weapon and kills the clerk), then EVERYONE involved is guilty of "felony murder" - which is typically punished the same as a full blown 2nd degree murder... even same as first degree in some jurisdictions.

So yeah - no "knowingly" is necessary. The "knowing" (guilty intent) requirement is satisfied as to the underlying felony... it just gets transfered to the murder.

Its still a stretch to apply here though. Too tenuous. Assange does not fit that concept, as he is not in cahoots with the taliban.

My point was, if you drive someone to a location, and they murder someone there, you are not automatically guilty of the murder. For example, if you did not "know" what the person was going to do, you would likely be found not guilty.

I am not talking about a case where someone is accidentally murdered during the commission of a felony.

That is my point concerning the word "knowingly." You cannot be complicity in a crime if you are unaware of the crime.

The driver of a car would be convicted of "accessory to murder" Provided the DA wanted to press charges (you bet your ass here)

Manning is screwed, Assange will probably float around in mixed jurisdiction land and never actually be extradited. On US soil they would both be guilty of accessory and most likely prosecuted to the maximum to well deserving be made an example of.

As an attorney I can tell you that you're wrong. If you drive someone to a location knowing they're about to commit a murder, there are two likely crimes you're going to be charged with:

Conspiracy to commit murderAccessory to/Aiding & abetting murder

You will not be charged with the murder itself UNLESS the murder was completed in the midst of another felony (i.e. robbery; the underlying murder does not cause murder to attach to the non-acting party). In that instance you would be charged with felony murder . Every state penal code has it's own particularities, especially in the realm of aiding & abetting, but those are the general principles.

Without actually checking an internet source due to laziness and the fact that anyone who cares will inevitably go looking it up I believe I may be correct on the following:

An accessory is someone who helps plan and execute the events leading up to a murder, but is not involved in directly causing the death.

An accomplice is someone who has a hand in the death, but is not the instigator or the mastermind or whatever. In virtually every multiple person crime there is someone who pushes the hardest to commit the crime, and a follower. For more on this study criminal behaviors.

quote: However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction.

Felony murder statute. You and friend rob a bank. Guard gets killed and in the process he kills you friend. You face murder charge. In some states you face 2 murder charges however not all states include death of co-conspirator in felony murder statute.

Same situation except guard MISSES your friend and kills bystander. Now you are looking at double murder charge (bystander and guard).

BTW: I agree with you on the fully. Most people use the English language imprecisely.

A "contributory act" could include telling them where the bank was. Would someone who did so also be charged with murder? Probably not.

Obviously, what Assange did was more significant than that. But he did not participate directly in the deaths here. He just provided the information that instigated it. To equate it to murder is a stretch.

If you tell a violent person their wife is cheating on them, and they murder their wife, are you responsible?